Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Disenfranchising The Voters by KrisAnne Hall

The national popular vote would ensure that the people themselves would be silenced.

Disenfranchising The Voters by KrisAnne Hall

Disenfranchising The Voters

by KrisAnne Hall
June 21, 2017

On Wednesday the Oregon House passed legislation (HB 2927) that would make Oregon award its Electoral College votes only to presidential candidates who win the national popular vote. According to National Popular Vote, this kind of legislation has already been passed by 11 States, (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA).

To be clear, Oregon and these other 11 States are not abolishing the Electoral College but altering it. Article 2 section 2 clauses 2 and 3 and the Twelfth Amendment of the US Constitution require States to establish electors that will choose the president and vice president of the United States.  These States are not eliminating their electoral college, they are eliminating the voice of their citizens and eliminating the legitimacy and relevance of their State’s involvement in the political process. In short, disenfranchising the vote of an entire State.

Oregon Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer

The process of the electoral college was established for a specific reason.  Because we have failed, for generations, to teach an accurate application of the Constitution, many people like Oregon Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer believe that the electoral college is “flawed and outdated.”  Rep. Keny-Guyer told Oregon Live, “The Electoral College does not fit the ‘We The People’ and ‘One person, one vote’ style of government.

Rep. Keny-Guyer and those who believe as she does simply do not understand why the electoral college was established and how that process protects her individual liberty and the sovereignty of her State.  She also doesn’t understand that neither Oregon nor America are democracies, but instead are Constitutional Republics. The incessant push toward being ruled by majority opinion is supposed to be antithetical to the American character, unfortunately the dearth of real education in America has created an equal scarcity of understanding about America’s fundamental principles.

The process of the electoral college was established to ensure that the person elected to be president of these United States would accurately represent the union as a whole, not favoring certain States while ignoring others. The office of president, contrary to popular belief, was never designed to be a representative of individual citizens, but rather a representative of the collective interests of the States. A survey of the powers delegated to the president via Article 2 of the Constitution makes the role of the president quite clear. He is not the “leader of America,” he is the leader of the military upon declaration of war by Congress. He is part of the treaty process that makes contractual agreements with foreign governments and the States.

Most everything that the president is to do, he does only with the consent of the Senate (the voice of the States). Together, the President and the Senate ensure that each State’s interests are represented equally in matters of war, peace, and foreign commerce. The office of the president was established to be the voice to foreign countries on behalf of the collective States. Because he is the representative of the States, the electors of the State are to choose their president based upon the person they believe will best represent the principles and interests of their State.

There is no power delegated by the Constitution to the president that authorizes him to directly affect the lives of the people. The only power held by the president to touch lives individually would be that of the power to grant reprieves or pardons for federal crimes and that was established to be a check and balance upon the judiciary, not a system of personal favors to individuals.

Because the president’s role in government is to be an ambassador on behalf of the States, the States must choose their representative. The popular vote for president that takes place within the State ensures that the principles and the interests of the people of that State guide and direct the electors in their choice of president. These subtle distinctions are hard for Americans to grasp since we perceive our nation to be a unitary whole where the states provide support to the central government that directs them. We have forgotten that our republic is a collection of independent sovereign States who created D.C. to represent their interests.

However, the national popular vote movement takes us even farther away from our Constitutional structure by further removing the independence of the States, and eliminating the voice of the people within those states. This legislation proposes that once a popular vote is complete across the nation, each elector of the State must choose the person elected by popular vote regardless of the collective choice of his fellow State citizens. This legislation mandates that each State submit to the popular choice, regardless of whether that candidate best represents the interests and principles of the people of that State.

Through popular vote, the individual States would become completely irrelevant in the processes of the federal government. The president would no longer be required to ensure all States’ interests were represented in matters of foreign affairs. The president’s only concern, throughout the entire four years of his terms, would be to make sure the select few States, with the greatest voting population, were happy and pleased with the execution of his power. It would be like Georgia surrendering all its voice to New York and legislating themselves out of the political process or like Connecticut asking Texas to decide what is in the best interest of Connecticut.

Future presidents could then ignore all but a few states. All treaties could be focused upon the prosperity and growth of a select few States, at best ignoring the rest, at worst requiring the lesser populated States to enrich the other States via treaties and regulations. All wars could be conducted in the interest of a few States and all peace could be negotiated to benefit the few over the whole. Cabinet members and supreme Court justices could be chosen from persons of those few States because there would be no reason to make an equitable search. Every State that did not hold the majority voting population could be relegated to being a spectator in the entire political process.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, summed up what was not only the popular belief of the delegates, but would also become the controlling belief in establishing Article 2 section 1 clauses 2 and 3 of the Constitution.  He classified a national popular vote of the president to be “liable to the most obvious & striking objections.”  He said if the people were to elect the president by popular vote, “They will be led by a few active & designing men. The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.”

Not only will the States be silenced in their political affairs nationally and in foreign negotiations, the national popular vote would ensure that the people themselves would be silenced.  What would be the point in voting if you didn’t live in New York, Texas, California, or Florida, where the majority of the voting population resides?  Every presidential election would be chosen by these few States and these few States would grow and maintain their voting power, because the national popular vote system would ensure the enrichment of these States over every other State.  A national popular vote, is in fact an oxymoron, as it would only reflect the voice of the majority, denying every person in their State a voice in the presidential election.

Those who cry for a national popular vote, do so out of ignorance, yet maddening on to their own destruction. Oregon and States like her will not achieve a greater voice with the elimination of the Constitutional process of the electoral college, they will ensure their political irrelevance from this day forward.

About KrisAnne Hall

KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups – she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. KrisAnne Hall does not just teach the Constitution, she lays the foundations that show how reliable and relevant our founding documents are today. She presents the “genealogy” of the Constitution – the 700 year history and five foundational documents that are the very roots of American Liberty.

 

23 Comments on Disenfranchising The Voters by KrisAnne Hall

  1. Excellent article. Talk about having a whetstone taken to a dull blade; I was more a popular vote guy than a State’s Rights guy but now I’ll have to reconsider this. With the modern Executive Department it is too easy to get the lights shined into your eyes and hypnotized out of what is really supposed to be.

    Along with Executive Agreements supplanting Treaties the modern Executive Department has taken on too much power.

    And heck, even though I was inclined to think kindly on Popular Vote, still I did not like the infringing of the State’s Electoral Votes by their implementing winner-takes-all rules within the State. A State’s individual Electoral Votes should have the same integrity as a person’s vote…one for one.

  2. The bill ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the presidential candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

    In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

    And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don’t matter to presidential candidates.
    Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
    Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
    8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    • I understand that you are from http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ however, your arguments do not make sense to me.

      The population over the US in 2013 was 316,128,839.

      You reach over half that population in the top 9 states.

      When the people in those 9 states vote for a particular candidate, explain to me please how the remaining 41 states, plus Puerto Rico, will have their votes count at all?

      It will have been a done deal. Therefore, the (coincidentally democrat-leaning) majority of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and Michigan will be the decision makers for all of us.

      What place will the rest of us have in this great country?

      http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml

      • Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

        With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

        But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

        With National Popular Vote, it’s not the size of any given state, it’s the size of their “margin” that will matter.

        In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
        * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
        * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
        * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
        * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
        * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
        * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
        * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

      • Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” They list the number of votes cast for each slate. The official count of the popular vote is at the NARA web site. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country

        • There are more people in LA than in my entire state. One city can outvote all of us.

          How does that mean a national popular vote will be fair to the more rural, less populated states?

          • Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

            None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
            The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

          • The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

            Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

            16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

            16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
            The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

            The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

          • California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

            The vote difference in California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

            California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
            31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

            In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
            About 62% Democratic

            California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

            8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

            With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California will matter.

            Now, Republican voters in California don’t matter.
            Now, Democratic voters in Texas don’t matter.

            A presidential candidate could lose, winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

          • No, I’m sorry, but now you are just rattling off “talking points”. The rural areas are not in favor of a popular vote. This, more than anything else, would leave them out in the cold.

            Cite your sources.

            You are spouting the value of a ‘Democracy’. We are not a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. The electoral college was set up specifically to address these issues of representing ALL the people fairly.

          • Support in the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) – VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%. NationalPopularVote.com

            They ARE out in the cold. The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

          • Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

            Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

            Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

            Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

            Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

            Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

            Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
            “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

            Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
            “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

            Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

            “Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

            Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida’s shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states – like water issues in the west.

            The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, from the free-trade party.

            Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

            Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years is skewed to battleground states

          • You are citing your own website. Where did you gather your data from?

            I can tell you from my own personal experience of traveling throughout more than one of the states listed, including my own state, that there is not that kind of a majority for this idea. Who in the world came up with these numbers?

            We have many typical politicians in my state, as is everywhere. If there had been this much support, it would have happened a long time ago. As it is, it doesn’t even make the news headlines.

            Additionally, national “polls” are notoriously skewed. Very unreliable, as is the MSM. If that is the best you’ve got, then you are wasting your time.

          • Last time I looked and analysed:

            Average support in 35 statewide polls over the last 10 years was 74% (66% among Republican registered voters, 82% among Democrats, and 71% among independents).

            In most of the polls, voters were asked “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”

            AK – 70%, AR – 80%, AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CO – 68%, CT – 74%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, FL – 78%, IA –75%, ID – 77%, KY- 80%, MA – 73%, ME – 77%, MI – 73%, MN – 75%, MO – 70%, MS – 77%, MT – 72%, NC – 74%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NM– 76%, NV – 72%, NY – 79%, OH – 70%, OK – 81%, OR – 76%, PA – 78%, RI – 74%, SC – 71%, SD – 71%, TN – 83%, UT – 70%, VA – 74%, VT – 75%, WA – 77%, WI – 71%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%.

            More than 3,080 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

            The bill in 2017 has passed in the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
            It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
            Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

        • California has 55 electoral votes. If the last election was won by Democrats at 62%, why shouldn’t the electoral votes have been distributed the same?

          Clinton would have received 34 and Trump 21.

          This would have insured fairness to all voters, instead of 28% of the voters (and a majority of the counties) being disenfranchised.

          • There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

            Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

            The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

            It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

            It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

            It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

            It would not make every vote equal.

            It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

            The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

    • The bill is comprehendable…but is it proper…more importantly is it Constitutional? Two points, 1) If a State has a number of Electors and those Electors are mandated by this Bill to give their vote to the winner of the National Popular Vote, then, that is the State telling the Elector how to vote…and not the Elector voting themselves…and that on prima facia just is not proper, and 2) As KrisAnne ably noted the Presidency was not meant to a great supreme leader over our country and thus not directly chosen from the population at large…that is giving Democracy too much power…where the majority can elect a “Great Leader” who could subjugate the Rights of the States with lesser populations via the power of the Federal Bureaucracy under the Executive Department.

      James Madison, June 26, 1787, Federal Convention
      ….No agrarian attempts have yet been made in in this Country, but symptoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded agst. on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded agst.?

      An “Interested Coalition” in this case being a socialist majority electing a like minded President via assistance of this Bill.

      • Unable. to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
        “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
        The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

        States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors

        The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

      • Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

        With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

  3. Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
    “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
    “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

    Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

    In the 2016 general election campaign

    Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

    Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

    • I 100% agree with this statement: “Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution”.

      That being said, KrisAnne’s position is 100% valid. And your points in this comment have a lot of weight. This might be a case of having to chose whether to land on Sylla or Charibdis…both of which have their hard to swallow aspects.

  4. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, like Oregon, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

  5. Even if I did favor the National Popular vote, which I do not, there is another issue they will have to get past before they can justify an argument.

    How about the millions of illegal voters? We do not open our elections to the rest of the world. They are only supposed to have citizens voting. Until that issue is addressed, a popular vote is – by far – extremely unfair.

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

Comments are closed.